Don, I’m confused a bit. If you’re looking at an image file of a document, are you saying that this image could be bogus because it’s not the actual paper document? Maybe I didn’t go to the courthouse, but I have a digital photocopy of the document that I am looking at. Why is this not sufficient for “what I, myself, know”?
Thanks, Kirsty J From: Don Hanson [mailto:terra...@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:34 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] sourcing questions Kirsty, I source what I, myself, know. In this case, the source of your evidence is the person who supplied the info. I would note where you might find the original, so that you or another researcher could more easily view it first-hand. But you did not personally view the source document. You aren’t even sure that the person supplying it did. For me, a source documents the source of the information that I used to reach a conclusion. Everything else goes into determining the quality of that source. For some facts, I may not want to have better sources. I may not be able to justify the expense, or maybe a better quality source doesn’t exist. So, for my purposes, the source is what I used, not what I could have used. The ‘coulda, shoulda, woulda goes into notes. Don From: Kirsty M. Haining [mailto:khain...@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 5:08 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] sourcing questions Don — Thank you for this thoughtful response. It helps clarify some issues in my mind. It sounds like, in my specific situation, you would advocate sourcing the person who supplied the vital certificate rather than the entity that created or holds those certificates. This is opposite what Jenny was saying she does — in the example you used, Jenny would (if I understand her correctly) source the birth certificate’s issuing agency and then comment that she received the image of the birth certificate from Sarah Rubenstein by email who said she got it from her professional genealogist who visited xyz County Courthouse in the Summer of 2010). The actual style of sourcing, then, seems like one of those stylistic choices that a genealogist will choose and then hopefully stick with consistently (like burial notes versus cemetery event). Your comments on “form” versus “substance” and the purpose being to help another person find that same information are also helpful. I think I can sometimes get bogged down worrying over the “right” way to do something, when what’s most important is that the information is communicated. It seems like every year or two I’m updating the way I handle sources; they become more and more precise. (And I always vow that one of these days I’m going to have to go back and fix the incomplete sourcing I did back when I was first getting started.) I felt confused about what to do earlier today, but now I feel more confident in the choices I’ll end up making for my particular sourcing situations. Thank you for your response. cheers, Kirsty Haining Seattle, WA J Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
